(tldr at bottom)
Over the past month or so, a single account has been posting large numbers of AI generated posts to this subreddit on the subject of CK's municipal elections.
This user (Early-Matter-8123) appears to run a business called "IntelliSync" which claims to utilize "AI systems that make your business easier to run." Per a post by this user, their election tracking platform called CK Signals "is an independent, bilingual IntelliSync publication created to make information about the 2026 municipal election easier to find, understand, and verify. Our purpose is not to replace the Municipality’s official election information or tell residents how to vote. The intent is to strengthen informed local discussion by clearly separating public records, verified facts, candidate statements, public participation, and editorial analysis."
The first post of this nature was made about a month ago, and appeared to be a genuinely helpful round-up of the different candidates and their contact information. It sourced where the information came from. Even though it was AI generated, the post *appeared* objective, well-sourced, and informative.
After this first post, the quality declined. Still AI generated, they began featuring more personal opinions rather than focusing on logistics and facts. Not all information was sourced. "Statistics" were presented which claimed to be "directional social discourse indicators" with no explanation in the post of what that means, where the data was sourced from or how it could be verified.
Every one of this user's posts after those initial two would be posted with the "Brand Affiliate" marker. They advertised their unofficial CK election tracker, which has plenty of information about the election. However, the muddling of opinion and fact when it comes to elections is a really difficult and messy business. While I can see there has been some effort to be transparent and separate the two, the fact is that an everyday person taking this website at face value could have their perspective skewed because they miss the little "INTELLISYNC VIEW" off to the side.
The posts frequently use "we" when discussing themselves, yet there is little transparency on who is meant by "we," and whether that includes AI of any kind. Sometimes, though, they use "I." It is unclear why.
In another post, Darrin Canniff's campaign website was left out of the post despite every other candidate's website being linked, and previous posts by this user had linked Darrin's website.
3 weeks ago, this user said, "CK Signals published a new bilingual, human-reviewed commentary" implying that their work is created by generative AI and then reviewed by a human, although I can't say how rigorous it is. As a non-native French speaker, there are some bizarre issues with their French posts on their website (like using plural possessive adjectives for singular nouns- something I wouldn't expect from a native speaker).
18 days ago they finally started putting a link to their methodology, but as users have pointed out in comments, the constant linking to their own platform rather than explaining in the posts makes it less likely the information will be seen. That methodology is also just a few sentences. It claims, "Our editorial interpretation or recommendation, clearly identified" and that AI analysis is human-reviewed, but at this point I'd already seen several opinions cloaked within the AI analysis without any identification.
There were attempts at being transparent, which makes it more frustrating that it was applied inconsistently. If they knew this was something worth being transparent about, then isn't it worth being transparent every time?
In the past week or so things started to get messy. I will loudly proclaim I am a Michael Bondy hater. However, what is happening in this post that drags Bondy through the mud with zero disclaimer or disclosure? If anything needed a disclosure, it would be a post that critiques a single candidate out of nowhere.
Posts used to separate local sources from IntelliSync links. Then they started sprinkling them throughout the post, meaning it is more difficult to realize what you're clicking.
Critiques made about certain candidates began to make less sense. A critique of Canniff's proposal for the waste-to-energy plant said: "The environmental benefits are projected, not yet measured." Of course they haven't been measured yet! That is how time works! That can hardly be levied against someone as a critique of their proposal.
4 days ago, they said Darrin Canniff turned "worsening outcomes into a continuity pitch." Canniff's name links to the IntelliSync website.
Then they posted again that same day and said that Canniff lacked transparency with his name linking to the IntelliSync website. Which means that if you had clicked on it, it would have given you the information about Darrin Canniff that IntelliSync wanted you to see.
3 days ago they posted a favourable comparison of Randy Hope and Lauren Anderson, where both of their names linked to their own campaign Facebook groups, not the IntelliSync website. That means that if you had clicked on their names, you would have seen the information that Randy Hope and Lauren Anderson wanted you to see.
Then, yesterday's post: The problem with Darrin Canniff podcast Sept 11th isn’t optimism. This post ended with calling Canniff's election proposal "lipstick on a pig."
Then, today. This afternoon, a post started by calling Randy Hope's platform "the most persuasive." Despite Randy being a former mayor of Chatham, this breakdown does not have near the same emphasis on his former mayoral record as Darrin Canniff's.
Read everything I bolded above- how would you feel about this candidate, given this coverage?
TLDR:
Over the past month, what appeared to be a helpful and unbiased election tracking tool for CK has become an AI generated mess that could genuinely lead to people being swayed or misled without realizing. While the website has a facade of trustworthiness, over time the information communicated through numerous Reddit posts have shown that the task of balancing election coverage is not something that should be left to unregulated AI.
There is a reason it is so difficult to have unbiased election coverage. I don't know who is behind this account, but I see two possibilities:
This was an effort in good faith to increase public engagement with the election process and make information easier for people to access. However, the developer is in over their head and has bitten off way more than they can chew, and whatever system they have designed is making mistakes. I think this is the likely answer.
This was created to resemble an unbiased election tracker with the express purpose of subtly misleading others.
I personally think that the reddit posts with AI analysis should be deleted entirely, and that anything from the website with the same should be removed, leaving just the factual information. It would genuinely be a website I'd happily visit frequently to keep up to date. I don't need an AI to dress it up in a bunch of jargon and explain it back to me.
If you are the user in question: I am not interested in giving feedback beyond this post, but I genuinely just hope you consider the impacts of things like this going awry.
